On 01/15/18 at 12:56am, Eli Schwartz via arch-projects wrote: > On 01/15/2018 12:07 AM, Luke Shumaker wrote: > > From what I see, that's a minority position, but of course I run in > > FSF circles, so my perception is a bit skewed. :P > > > > If that's the official position that the archweb team wants to take, I > > won't argue. > > I dunno what jelle/angvp/the gang would say, I do know that my personal > opinion is markedly skewed. :p
I don't think we care largely care/cared. But this is probably something we should resolve. <huge snip> > >> I'll be watching this list and the Pull Requests page on archweb's > >> github with anticipation. ;) > > > > Wait, archweb is on GitHub? :P > > > > Is a GitHub PR the preferred method, or is the usual git-send-email to > > this ML preferred? > > > > (Though I have to be honest: this is on my TODO list, but fairly low > > priority on it) > > Arch Linux has a Github organization: https://github.com/archlinux > > A few things are mirrored there, and a couple new projects have their > primary home there. > Archweb specifically is primarily developed there via pull requests. > Unlike other Arch projects, it is the preferred workflow of archweb > developers/contributors. > Though I am sure git-send-email to this ML will still get through. :) Yeah PR's are preferred, they get tested automatically too. I'll respond on the other mail about the violating files :) -- Jelle van der Waa
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature